7 Physicists have published a paper in the Journal of Astrophysics and Space Sciences, and here is what they have to say on the issue of GCRs and Temperatures.

From the conclusions...

Quote:

The superposed epoch analysis confirmed the statisticallysignificant influence of CR intensity decrease on the state ofthe atmosphere. The effect is visible only if FDs exceedingthe threshold (7% amplitude with the Mt. Washington data)are considered. The result strongly supports the idea thatcosmic rays influence the atmospheric processes and climate.

The group of physicists found that nighttime temperatures are increasing faster than daytime temperatures with Forbush decreases, which strongly supports the CR driving Cloud Cover driving Climate Theory. This indicates that the majority of the warming seen up to date has been due to albedo decreases, since clouds reflect sunlight in the daytime, cooling off daytime temperatures, and trap LWR at night. With decreases in Cloud Cover, you would get daytime temperatures warming faster than nighttime temperatures, which would get you a larger diurnal temperature change, and this is what has been observed.

Too bad that "evidence" does not seem to convince the majority of the experts in the field, which would be expected to be the most knowledgable group.

The consensus argument has so many flaws in it,

Only if one is ignorant of science and math.

Quote:

and I can bring up links and papers that support this if you please.

Links you can keep, but papers published in recognized peer-reviewed publications could be used to try to support your claim, however the consenus concerning the science such as gravity and evolution would also have to be considered with the same criteria.

The majority of the reputable papers are clearly against your position one climate change.

Quote:

What evidence convinced you that CAGW is occuring, Wayne?

There is significant evidence of the level of extreme weather events increasing, which indicates a currently occuring change in climate. The historical effects of similar climate change indicate those changes will more likely be negative impacts on the majority of life on the planet. There will be no proof of the level of impact until such impacts have been measured ... if there is anyone there to measure them.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I am sure you will quiote it even if the later reviews indicate a significant error in the review. The odd thing is you support the use similar proxy measurements for conclusions with which you agree and claim the uses with which you disagree must be flawed ... with no proof outside of personal belief.

I will await the reviews and the way this paper is received by the experts in the field as to the quality of the data and associated conclusions.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Links you can keep, but papers published in recognized peer-reviewed publications could be used to try to support your claim, however the consenus concerning the science such as gravity and evolution would also have to be considered with the same criteria.

There is significant evidence of the level of extreme weather events increasing, which indicates a currently occuring change in climate. The historical effects of similar climate change indicate those changes will more likely be negative impacts on the majority of life on the planet. There will be no proof of the level of impact until such impacts have been measured ... if there is anyone there to measure them.

Okay, with regards to your first point, here are three papers that refute to major "consensus" papers. Oreskes 2004 and Doran 2009.

The Oreskes 2004 paper is seriously flawed, because not only does it cherry pick papers to show a predetermined conclusion, it also mathematically incorrect. For example, in Oreskes 2004, Naomi Oreskes claims she analyzed 928 abstracts, but in the paper it shows that she only analyzed 905 abstracts. This means that Oreskes' claim is incorrect. In addition, when Dr. Benny Peiser did the same search from 1993-2003, he found 12,000 papers, when he searched for "global climate change." This means that Naomi Oreskes' paper is flawed, cherry picked, and has been debunked over and over and over again.

Here is Dr. Benny Peiser's quote in its entirety.

Quote:

Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993-2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. [...] ...she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" [yet her paper is clearly titled: The scientific consensus on "climate change" not "global climate change"] Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents) [...] The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. [...] 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years". 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change.

In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.” Furthermore, even if scientists agree that the effect of human activity is “significant,” which is the word used in the second question, they can have very different beliefs as to how large, and how dangerous, this effect is.

Quote:

While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase “major cause” in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase “significant contributing factor.” There is a large difference between these two phrases.

With regards to your second point, it is not true at all. Take this recent peer reviewed study conducted by Dr. Ryan Maue, who finds that Accumulated Cyclonic Energy has not increased over the last 40 or so years, and is currently at record lows. (SOURCE)

Quote:

Tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) has exhibited strikingly large global interannual variability during the past 40-years. In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low. Here evidence is presented demonstrating that considerable variability in tropical cyclone ACE is associated with the evolution of the character of observed large-scale climate mechanisms including the El Niño Southern Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In contrast to record quiet North Pacific tropical cyclone activity in 2010, the North Atlantic basin remained very active by contributing almost one-third of the overall calendar year global ACE.

And according to the NCDC, there has been no trend upward in Strong Tornadoes.

Many have tried to link the Somalian drought to Global Warming as well. The drought is fairly significant,

But the IPCC models completely missed the mark, and predicted a surplus amount of precipitation in Somalia.

Perhaps, maybe, the drought in Somalia is evidence that Climate Change is not man made. ;)

To save time posting the various position papers and Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010, Bray and von Storch, 2008, STATS, 2007, Bray and von Storch, 2003, in addition to the Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 and Oreskes, 2004 you mentioned.

I am sure you will quiote it even if the later reviews indicate a significant error in the review.

There have been no flaws indicated with the paper yet, so the argument that you are trying to get to refute this paper is purely hypothetical.

You should read my post again. I know there are no published flaws as the paper was just published itself. Thus the argument concerning the paper is whether it is accepted by the experts in the field or not. That is clearly not supported by the fact it was published, nor does it having been published make it accepted by any expert other than the author. The quality of the position is yet to be determined.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

To save time posting the various position papers and Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010,

I note the links in opposition to Oreskes, 2004 rather than papers and I also note the link indicates a number of articles and then tries to refute that number it already listed.

Schneider 2010? That paper has so many errors, and it cherry picks many things quite honestly.

For example, in the paper:

Quote:

climate change skeptics and contrarians in that we primarily focuson researchers that have published extensively in the climate field,although we consider all skeptics/contrarians that have signed prominentstatements concerning ACC (6–8).

They claim that they consider "contrarians who have signed prominent statements, when in reality they do not even consider the Manhatten Declaration on Climate Change, The Heidelberg Appeal, or the Oregon Petition, or even Climate Depot's list of 1000+ Scientists (and counting.)

The link to Dr. Peiser's paper is void, so I provided a link instead of the actual peer reviewed paper.

In addition, we have this nice quote from Spencer Weart, one of the co-authors of the paper.

Quote:

"I have to admit that this paper should not have been published in the present form." - Spencer Weart

quote[ However, the evidence is overwhelming that the current warming that we have seen is due to natural cycles. Human CO2 is significantly dwarfed to just albedo changes alone. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... effect.htm FALSE! They are in there, among the 169 BS arguments people like you use. I studied meteorology from 1966-71, but the big thing is I have experienced it for my 62 years and have seen and felt the climate change.

All 169 of your BS arguments that people like you like to use can be debunked by an actual scientist here:

To save time posting the various position papers and Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010,

I note the links in opposition to Oreskes, 2004 rather than papers and I also note the link indicates a number of articles and then tries to refute that number it already listed.

Schneider 2010? That paper has so many errors, and it cherry picks many things quite honestly.

For example, in the paper:

Quote:

climate change skeptics and contrarians in that we primarily focuson researchers that have published extensively in the climate field,although we consider all skeptics/contrarians that have signed prominentstatements concerning ACC (6–8).

They claim that they consider "contrarians who have signed prominent statements, when in reality they do not even consider the Manhatten Declaration on Climate Change, The Heidelberg Appeal, or the Oregon Petition, or even Climate Depot's list of 1000+ Scientists (and counting.)

You seem to have missed reading the terms "prominent" and "published extensively in the climate field" or not realized what the terms mean. The Oregon Petition, for example, is useless given the mixture of time periods where they acknowledged there was no oversight for determination of validity of the signatures they added. The criteria for having extensively published in the climate field" removes the lists where anyone who can be claimed as being a scientist due to having a claim of education relating to science does not rise to the level the paper is seeking. The experts in the field is the focus not whomever can claim to have a BS.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

quote[ However, the evidence is overwhelming that the current warming that we have seen is due to natural cycles. Human CO2 is significantly dwarfed to just albedo changes alone. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... effect.htm FALSE! They are in there, among the 169 BS arguments people like you use. I studied meteorology from 1966-71, but the big thing is I have experienced it for my 62 years and have seen and felt the climate change.

All 169 of your BS arguments that people like you like to use can be debunked by an actual scientist here:

Pssst .... you do know there are "actual scientists" who contribute to skeptical science too, right? Not on the payroll of a pro-industry publication either, which some would consider being biased given the history of the industry offering to pay authors for skeptical publications in the past.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein